From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 30 19:06:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA00662 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spooky.rwwa.com (rwwa.com [198.115.177.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA00657 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spooky.rwwa.com (localhost.rwwa.com [127.0.0.1]) by spooky.rwwa.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA28727; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707010205.WAA28727@spooky.rwwa.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 To: Chuck Robey cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS V3 is it stable? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:44:07 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:05:49 -0400 From: Robert Withrow Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk chuckr@glue.umd.edu said: :- Samy, are you using NFS to mount the mail sppol directories? Since :- nfs locking isn't in a very good condition, it's almost guaranteed to :- fail. The mail directories are accessed bot for mail delivery and mail :- pickup, and reliable locking is a top requirement. But... I am doing this without *any* problems with FBSD 2.1.[567], where the mail spools are served by a Solaris system. I was going to upgrade a bunch of systems to 2.2-release, but now I'm worried. IMO, This *must* be made to work at least as well as it does in 2.1.[567]. And suggesting doing this another way is a non-starter, since in this >1000 system shop, they aren't going to change things 'cause a dozen or so FreeBSD systems get gas. They barely tolerate me as it is... (Hell, I only got them to NIS-serve AMD maps because they wanted to try out AMD on some *sun* systems...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 592 8935, Net: witr@rwwa.COM